Who is My mother and my brethren?

[Giuseppe]

Don't you think Marcion could not have done a better job in showing that "your mother and your brothers" were not the blood mother and blood brothers of Jesus?

I dont' think it because the purpose of Marcion was to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers. Their logic was: if Jesus is a human Messiah, then he should have mother and brothers.

And Marcion stating:
"Thy mother and thy brethren stand without", but not saying what the "without" is relative to,
AND
not explaining why the mother & brothers were unable to get at Jesus (no mention of a crowd in between),
do show lacks (holes) in his narration.

1) because 'without' has to be related to something more specific? On the contrary, ''without'' gives deliberately the idea of absolute uncertainty of where you find these presumed parents of Jesus.

2) this is your reading:

not explaining why the mother & brothers were unable to get at Jesus (no mention of a crowd in between)

in Marcion that really is not there. It's expected that if Jesus had abandoned his mother & brothers, then they wanted to see him again after so long (without for this to move from where they were). The idea that they moved from their place in search of Jesus is not in Marcion. Therefore no need of a crowd in between in Evangelion.

"Luke", "Matthew" and "Mark" are very much clear because their narration is complete when the one of Marcion is truncated (that is because of one verse missing: Lk 8:19), creating holes and uncertainty (are these mother & brothers true blood relative of Jesus or not? unresolved).

You realize that the Marcion's narrative is complete when you recognize that 'the uncertainty (are these mother & brothers true blood relative of Jesus or not? unresolved)' is deliberately introduced so to move the readers in asking: who is Jesus really?

In conclusion, I admit partially that you strong argument is only this:

"Thy mother and thy brethren stand without", but not saying what the "without" is relative to

Viceversa, your major weakness is to be not able to explain the absence of a father with the mother and the brothers given the text.

[Bernard Muller]

I dont' think it because the purpose of Marcion was to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers. Their logic was: if Jesus is a human Messiah, then he should have mother and brothers.

So, you are saying Marcion's purpose was "to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers". But that goes against Marcion's christology. Why would Marcion do that, making a point against his own ideas?

1) because 'without' has to be related to something more specific? On the contrary, ''without'' gives deliberately the idea of absolute uncertainty of where you find these presumed parents of Jesus.

Why would Marcion give "deliberately the idea of absolute uncertainty of where you find these presumed parents of Jesus.". I do not see any advantage for him to do so.

in Marcion that really is not there. It's expected that if Jesus had abandoned his mother & brothers, then they wanted to see him again after so long (without for this to move from where they were). The idea that they moved from their place in search of Jesus is not in Marcion. Therefore no need of a crowd in between in Evangelion.

So, if it is the case, why Jesus' family members would be standing without, with a need of a messenger in order to inform Jesus of their presence, rather than meet Jesus immediately?

You realize that the Marcion's narrative is complete when you recognize that 'the uncertainty (are these mother & brothers true blood relative of Jesus or not? unresolved)' is deliberately introduced so to move the readers in asking: who is Jesus really?

The readers/listeners of this passage would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus does not have true blood mother or brothers. So there would be no asking. Then, the only rational about understanding that passage would be to interpret "your mother and your brothers" as a mature female follower and at least two younger male followers.
And if someone did not know then about Marcion's docetist Jesus, the passage does suggest Jesus had true blood family members, something that Marcion did not want anyone to think.
Tertullian certainly used that passage of gMarcion against Marcion:
We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord's nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. (AM, IV, 19)

Viceversa, your major weakness is to be not able to explain the absence of a father with the mother and the brothers given the text.

A major weakness? Gee, why? I do not see any reason the father had to accompany the mother & at least two brothers, more so if he was dead by then.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Bernard, I thank you for your questions, because it allows me to elaborate my point better.

You ask:

So, you are saying Marcion's purpose was "to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers". But that goes against Marcion's christology. Why would Marcion do that, making a point against his own ideas?

Remember about the demons, what they says when Jesus exorcizes them: ''you are the son of God'', etc.
According to Marcion, Jesus silences them, because they say a falsity: Jesus is not the son of Creator god, but is the son of a stranger God. And the readers of gMarcion knew this.

The fact that the demons are 'very confident that Jesus was the son of Demiurg' doesn't go against Marcion's christology, but at contrary it serves precisely in order to make a point entirely marcionite in nature.
If you accept this fact, then you should recognize that Marcion had no problems "to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers", if the answer of Jesus is more than sufficient to negate that fact.

In gMarcion, the fact that the pharisees & Pilate ask: Are you the king/Messiah? (and they think to know already the answer)
and Jesus replies respectively and enigmatically: vos dicitis, tu dices
show people 'very confident that Jesus was the sedicent Messiah of the Creator god' (and hence a human being) but this doesn't go against Marcion's christology.

Again, if you accept this fact, then you should recognize that Marcion had no problems "to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers", if the answer of Jesus is more than sufficient to negate that fact.

Why would Marcion give "deliberately the idea of absolute uncertainty of where you find these presumed parents of Jesus.". I do not see any advantage for him to do so.

Marcion has a clear interest in showing people that are very confident about the existence of mother & brothers contra factum that they didn't exist (because Jesus himself denies them in reply). Therefore the assertion of those 'certain people' must be vague enough (hence the use of a indeterminate 'standing without') to justify the absence in advance of those relatives of Jesus.

So, if it is the case, why Jesus' family members would be standing without, with a need of a messenger in order to inform Jesus of their presence, rather than meet Jesus immediately?

In order to make a marcionite reading of text, you should start by assuming that the Jesus' family is not standing without there, therefore the questioners are not really messengers of 'someone' because that 'someone' didn't exist. The questioners say simply: you do not care about seeing your family who are not here?

You realize that the Marcion's narrative is complete when you recognize that 'the uncertainty (are these mother & brothers true blood relative of Jesus or not? unresolved)' is deliberately introduced so to move the readers in asking: who is Jesus really?

The readers/listeners of this passage would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus does not have true blood mother or brothers. So there would be no asking.

See the logical contradiction that arises when I extend your view on all other cases where other actors show themselves 'very confident' about Jesus being human:
1) The readers/listeners of passage about demons would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus is not the human Messiah. So there would be no asking.
2) The readers/listeners of passage about trial by priests and Pilate would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus is not the human Messiah. So there would be no asking.
3) The readers/listeners of passage about Peter's confession at Cesarea Philippi would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus is not the human Messiah. So there would be no asking.

You seem to confuse the actors of the drama with the readers of the drama: the former are surely more ignorant than the latter.

And if someone did not know then about Marcion's docetist Jesus, the passage does suggest Jesus had true blood family members, something that Marcion did not want anyone to think.

Here I disagree entirely. The passage does suggest some people thought (wrongly) that Jesus had true blood family members, something that gMarcion did introduce only in order to negate expressly that.

This implies that the first historicist by definition was Marcion, because he introduces the humanity of Jesus as a pure tool to reiterate the essential divinity of Jesus (against his humanity).

A major weakness? Gee, why? I do not see any reason the father had to accompany the mother & at least two brothers, more so if he was dead by then.

The historicity of passage is very questionable, because it reflects clearly the opposition between false and true family of Jesus, and by extension, of all the true Christians (beyond if marcionites or proto-catholics). Therefore you leteralist reading is precisely your weakness, in this case.

I apologize for the lenght of comment, but I enjoy in writing it.

good prosecution,
Giuseppe

[Giuseppe]

I take again this quote:

For what other reason the people claim, that "your mother" is out there?

For what other reason the demons claim ''I know who are you, the one saint of God'' ?
For what other reason the inhabitans of Capernaum claim ''Isn't this the Son of Joseph? Let be'' ?
For what other reason Peter claims ''Tu es Christus, the Son of living God'' ?

The statements do not have the same quality. What you quoted are proclamations, but in our example the people claim a fact. It is a fact about the mother (stands without with the brothers) and not about Jesus (except indirectly).

I would point out the fact that, when Jesus replied to pharisees (Luke 22:70) and to Pilate (Luke 23:3) resp.:

VOS DICITIS

and

TU DICES

is Jesus himself that converted the questions of his enemies in clear 'claims' (meaning their being victim of misconceptions) by themselves (obviously in a marcionite interpretation of these passages).

Therefore in any example of the general pattern I allude it's true that some people/demons ''claim a fact''.

But Kunigunde Kreuzerin is right that only in this specific case we see that some people claim a fact ''about the mother (stands without with the brothers) and not about Jesus''.

The problem is that very problematic ἔξω :

{ἀπηγγέλω . . . αὐτῷ} ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου {ἔξω ἐστήκασιν ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε}

There are two cases:

1) the proclaimers are telling a lie, knowing that they are lying, for the sole purpose of putting Jesus into temptation.

2) the proclaimers believe they are saying a true fact and therefore they desire to know if Jesus is human.

I believe the point 2 was the case, but then I read what Tertullian reports about the view of his marcionite opponents about the episode:

They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” 4196 In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, 4197 as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first position this answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation (“Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;” 4198 again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him 4199 ), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not—when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they 4200 saw Him before them a veritable man?—whom they had heard call Himself “Son of man?”—of whom they doubted whether He were God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as they did, in the perfect garb of human quality?—supposing Him rather to be a prophet, a great one indeed, 4201 but still one who had been born as man? Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had.

source http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030418.htm

Note that against the 'temptation-theory' Tertullian can not really answer if not sinking into the most ridiculous rhetoric.

[Giuseppe]

The remaining answer of Tertullian shows that he is clearly in difficulty:

For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously 4202 with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? 4203 May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), p. 378 or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof 4204 that at this very time 4205 a census had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus, 4206 which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they “who were standing without” were really “His mother and His brethren.” It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal 4207 words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. 4208 He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow 4209 them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 4210 He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, 4211 that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” 4212 Besides, 4213 His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it 4214 did not possess.

source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030418.htm

Here Tertullian appeals to the census ''taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus'' where it was registered the birth of Jesus from human parents. This is not a joke. Tertullian is serious. So the apologist betrays a total lack of evidence of the humanity of Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

Remember about the demons, what they says when Jesus exorcizes them: ''you are the son of God'', etc.
According to Marcion, Jesus silences them, because they say a falsity: Jesus is not the son of Creator god, but is the son of a stranger God. And the readers of gMarcion knew this.

The fact that the demons are 'very confident that Jesus was the son of Demiurg' doesn't go against Marcion's christology, but at contrary it serves precisely in order to make a point entirely marcionite in nature.
If you accept this fact, then you should recognize that Marcion had no problems "to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers", if the answer of Jesus is more than sufficient to negate that fact.

But in the case of the mother & brothers, Marcion did not negate they are part of Jesus blood family through Jesus' alleged answer. That answer can certainly mean Jesus desavowed his blood family because they are not among his followers.
As far as interpreting "God" in "son of God" (4:21-22) as the one of the Jews, the imperfect creator, with Jesus denying it, you do not take in account 22:70, where Jesus is affirmative about being the son of God. All along, Marcion interpreted God as being the ultimate highest one, the true father of Jesus.
I find also very strange that Marcion, in his gospel, did not have Jesus saying he is not the son of the imperfect creator God of the Jews, but the Son of another God, the perfect & highest one. On this important matter, I would expect Marcion to go over that in his gospel, if he wrote it from scratch. He did not. Why? he worked from gLuke, making deletions and avoiding additions.

In gMarcion, the fact that the pharisees & Pilate ask: Are you the king/Messiah? (and they think to know already the answer)
and Jesus replies respectively and enigmatically: vos dicitis, tu dices
show people 'very confident that Jesus was the sedicent Messiah of the Creator god' (and hence a human being) but this doesn't go against Marcion's christology.

It's not king/Messiah, but "king of the Jews". And we have to wonder why Marcion was telling people 'very confident that Jesus was the sedicente Messiah of the Creator god' if Jesus is not that for him.

Again, if you accept this fact, then you should recognize that Marcion had no problems "to present ''certain people'' very confident that Jesus had a mother and brothers", if the answer of Jesus is more than sufficient to negate that fact.

Your facts are not facts, but biased interpretations trying to explain why Marcion had Jesus saying or being said to him things which go against Marcion's christology. The best answer is that Marcion had to work from gLuke and limiting himself to deletion of texts which went squarely against his views, but keeping others which could be argued, despite the appearances, not against the same views.

Marcion has a clear interest in showing people that are very confident about the existence of mother & brothers contra factum that they didn't exist (because Jesus himself denies them in reply). Therefore the assertion of those 'certain people' must be vague enough (hence the use of a indeterminate 'standing without') to justify the absence in advance of those relatives of Jesus.

Jesus does not deny his blood relatives did not exist in his reply. You admitted earlier:

Marcion's version only raises doubts about the mother and brothers outside being blood relatives

precisely.

In order to make a marcionite reading of text, you should start by assuming that the Jesus' family is not standing without there, therefore the questioners are not really messengers of 'someone' because that 'someone' didn't exist. The questioners say simply: you do not care about seeing your family who are not here?

That's a very strenuous explanation. And then who is asking a question? no one, no questioners, except Jesus himself.
And what do you mean by "the questioners are not really messengers of 'someone' because that 'someone' didn't exist".
Well, according to the narration, that "mother" and "brothers" of Jesus ("your") exist.
And what about "The questioners say simply: you do not care about seeing your family who are not here?"
Which questioner? And how do you know, according to the narration, the family is not standing close by to where Jesus is? And if the family was far away but wanted to see Jesus, why would they stay "standing outside" indefinitely? If they were so desirous to see Jesus, why would they not come to him?

See the logical contradiction that arises when I extend your view on all other cases where other actors show themselves 'very confident' about Jesus being human:
1) The readers/listeners of passage about demons would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus is not the human Messiah. So there would be no asking.
2) The readers/listeners of passage about trial by priests and Pilate would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus is not the human Messiah. So there would be no asking.
3) The readers/listeners of passage about Peter's confession at Cesarea Philippi would already know that, according to Marcion, Jesus is not the human Messiah. So there would be no asking.

I addressed that already: Marcion, if he had been the one to write the first gospel (all fictional), had no interest to present "other actors show themselves 'very confident' about Jesus being human". That would be self-defeating. That makes the readers/listeners of gMarcion seriously considering Jesus as fully human, because of the alleged testimony of Jesus' contemporaries, despite Marcion's views on the matter.

Here I disagree entirely. The passage does suggest some people thought (wrongly) that Jesus had true blood family members, something that gMarcion did introduce only in order to negate expressly that.

The problem is that Marcion did not negate expressly here Jesus having blood mother and blood brothers.

This implies that the first historicist by definition was Marcion, because he introduces the humanity of Jesus as a pure tool to reiterate the essential divinity of Jesus (against his humanity).

If it is the case, Marcion did a very bad job on that. Another case: Marcion had Jesus (when on earth) calling himself "son of man" (many times). That expression means earthly human.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Here Tertullian appeals to the census ''taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus'' where it was registered the birth of Jesus from human parents. This is not a joke. Tertullian is serious. So the apologist betrays a total lack of evidence of the humanity of Jesus.

Tertullian appealed to a census to "prove" that official records testify also to the birth of Jesus from human parents. That does not mean that Tertullian based the humanity of Jesus on that dubious fact. That census is presented as an additional evidence in favor of a fully human Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

But in the case of the mother & brothers, Marcion did not negate they are part of Jesus blood family through Jesus' alleged answer. That answer can certainly mean Jesus denies his blood family because they are not among his followers.

But it's sufficient I show you that it's a fact that some heretics thought this.

As far as interpreting "God" in "son of God" (4:21-22) as the one of the Jews, the imperfect creator, with Jesus denying it, you do not take in account 22:70, where Jesus is affirmative about being the son of God. All along, Marcion interpreted God as being the ultimate highest one, the true father of Jesus.

In a marcionite view, that ''VOS DICITIS'' means: 'you think that I am the son of Demiurg therefore you say that I am son of creator god, not I''.

I find also very strange that Marcion, in his gospel, did not have Jesus saying he is not the son of the imperfect creator God of the Jews, but the Son of another God, the perfect & highest one.

But the incipit in gMarcion is clear about the real celestial origins of Jesus.

On this matter, I would expect Marcion to go over that in his gospel, if he wrote it from scratch. He did not. Why? he worked from gLuke, making deletions and avoiding additions.

You can read the possible reason here.

As Marcion’s biographical nature of his Gospel was antithetical, meaning that through biography and history, Marcion wanted to point out the non receptive nature of history and the incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the transcendent and unknown God and his Messiah, Luke counters this programme by his emphasis on history.

source: http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2014/1 ... rical.html

This use of history to criticize the limits of the story itself, conveying deliberately an antithesis between mere, obscure human history and luminous Divine Mission of Son in it falls definitely in the area of what I would call allegory and symbol (something similar and reminiscent to the theme of Messianic Secret in Mark, where the true identity of Jesus is luminous but hidden for all time, and claims to criticism of human history, too).

But breaking this antithesis to all benefit of history Matthew and Luke seem to want to use the same history as an anti-marcionite tool – insisting on the arrival of Jesus ''in the flesh'' – and therefore to that extent also their emphasis on history has an exquisitely theological reason, behind.

It's not king/Messiah, but "king of the Jews".

'king of Jews' meant in traditional sense as king-Messiah, the davidic Messiah, the warrior Messiah.

And we have to wonder why Marcion was telling people 'very confident that Jesus was the sedicente Messiah of the Creator god' if Jesus is not that for him.

Please read Vinzent's view above.

Your facts are not facts, but biased interpretations trying to explain why Marcion had Jesus saying or being said to him things which go against Marcion's christology.

Please read Vinzent's view above. I'm not alone.

Jesus does not deny his blood relatives did not exist in his reply. You admitted earlier:

Marcion's version only raises doubts about the mother and brothers outside being blood relatives

precisely.

I argued earlier about the questioners, not about the answer of Jesus.
It's sufficient I show you some heretics that thought that with that question (as rethorical answer) 'Who is my mother and my brethren?' Jesus is negating any blood-relationship with human being.

Well, according to the narration, that "mother" and "brothers" of Jesus ("your") exist.

According to the heretic interpretation reported by Tertullian, the heretics thought that these questioners ''sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him''. Therefore they were the first in denying the existence of that mother and brothers of Jesus.

And what about "The questioners say simply: you do not care about seeing your family who are not here?"
Which questioner? And how do you know, according to the narration, the family is not standing close by to where Jesus is?

I don't know, reading the passage without Luke 8:19, where these people were, if these people existed in first place. ἔξω is very much indeterminate about.

And if the family was far away but wanted to see Jesus, why would they stay "standing outside" indefinitely? If they were so desirous to see Jesus, why would they not come to him?

This is not said in gMarcion but only in Luke.

I addressed that already: Marcion, if he had been the one to write the first gospel (all fictional), had no interest to present "other actors show themselves 'very confident' about Jesus being human". That would be self-defeating.

Please read Vinzent's view above.

That makes the readers/listeners of gMarcion seriously considering Jesus as fully human, because of the alleged testimony of Jesus' contemporaries, despite Marcion's views on the matter.

but Marcion in his antitheses explained point after point any allegorical meaning behind that alleged testimony of Jesus' contemporaries. And Tertullian attests the existence of heretics that shared the same views of Marcion without no problems of interpretation.

The problem is that Marcion did not negate expressly here Jesus having blood mother and blood brothers.

But it's sufficient to show that that was just the case according to historical heretics, as reported Tertullian.

This implies that the first historicist by definition was Marcion, because he introduces the humanity of Jesus as a pure tool to reiterate the essential divinity of Jesus (against his humanity).

If it is the case, Marcion did a very bad job on that. Another case: Marcion had Jesus (when on earth) calling himself "son of man" (many times). That expression means earthly human.

the 'son of man' locution is one of the key markers of Marcion's text - you only need to read Tertullian, how he criticises Marcion for it. Yet, he also gives Marcion's answer: the 'son of man' is Daniel's typos which misleads everybody who immediately thinks of the messiah as the warrior prince of the Creator god, instead the Christ of the transcendent God of mercy does not fight, but takes off suffering through his suffering and forgiving. Marcion, if you like, takes the typoi, but undermines them by giving them the new revealed meaning.

source: http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2015/0 ... 2258763683

Tertullian appealed to a census to "prove" that official records testify also to the birth of Jesus from human parents. That does not mean that Tertullian based the humanity of Jesus on that dubious fact. That census is presented as an additional evidence in favor of a fully human Jesus.

But Tertullian found the story of census in Luke, that would be the correction of gMarcion, therefore Tertullian based the humanity of Jesus on that dubious fact, adding no extra-evangelical evidence in favor of a fully human Jesus.

In conclusion, I like your strenuos opposition, but I recognize, if you like, that the passage in Marcion is not less easy than Luke, but only more critical against everything of human and material. In essentia, all are sinners and guilty of something, even those who say that outside there are ''your mother and your brothers'', but only Jesus is totally innocent.

[Bernard Muller]

But it's sufficient I show you that it's a fact that some heretics thought this.

So what? What does that have to do about the fact that some heretics thought this? I am not sure what do you mean by "this" in this context. I do not think it is sufficient, far from that.

In a marcionite view, that ''VOS DICITIS'' means: 'you think that I am the son of Demiurge therefore you say that I am son of creator god, not I''.

That's a lot to imagine from "So He said to them, “You say that I am [the son of God].”", with "that" which can possibly mean "because (that)" or "since (that)" or "how that".
And then, Marcion did not take the opportunity here to have Jesus clarify he is not the son of the God the Jews had in mind.

But the incipit in gMarcion is clear about the real celestial origins of Jesus

But gMarcion is also clear about a Jesus who looked as human as possible when walking the earth. However it is not clear how a celestial figure would appear on earth looking as human as the next guy.

You can read the possible reason here.

[Vinzent's words:] As Marcion’s biographical nature of his Gospel was antithetical, meaning that through biography and history, Marcion wanted to point out the non receptive nature of history and the incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the transcendent and unknown God and his Messiah, Luke counters this programme by his emphasis on history.

[Giuseppe's words:] This use of history to criticize the limits of the story itself, conveying deliberately an antithesis between mere, obscure human history and luminous Divine Mission of Son in it falls definitely in the area of what I would call allegory and symbol (something similar and reminiscent to the theme of Messianic Secret in Mark, where the true identity of Jesus is luminous but hidden for all time, and claims to criticism of human history, too).

That's a very complicated and convoluted (possible) reason.
Would you expect the readers/listeners of gMarcion to understand that? And I do not see an antithetical theme in that gospel: no clear statements about:
a) the God of Jesus not being the God of the Jews
b) Jesus having a Docetist body
c) the incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the transcendent and unknown God (they are never informed of him).

And I also wonder why Marcion had his Jesus not dealing with Gentiles, only Jews, when Marcion's clientele was mostly among Gentiles. And with Gentiles, his Jesus would have an easier time revealing his Platonic ultimate God!

It's sufficient I show you some heretics that thought that with that question (as rethorical answer) 'Who is my mother and my brethren?' Jesus is negating any blood-relationship with human being.

No, it is far from being sufficient. And there is no negating of any blood-relationship with human being. The passage can still mean Jesus is disavowing his blood family because they are not among his followers. And instead have a new family based on common belief.

According to the heretic interpretation reported by Tertullian, the heretics thought that these questioners ''sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him''. Therefore they were the first in denying the existence of that mother and brothers of Jesus.

Well, we know now other "heretics" had problems into interpreting the passage in a way that would not contradict their belief. Were those on "the other side" living before or after Marcion? most likely after, because those seems to be commenting on gMarcion.

but Marcion in his antitheses explained point after point any allegorical meaning behind that alleged testimony of Jesus' contemporaries. And Tertullian attests the existence of heretics that shared the same views of Marcion without no problems of interpretation.

Marcion's antitheses is a lost document. We do not know when it was published, before, during or after gMarcion. Certainly, gMarcion, with all its silences on the most important marcionite points, was not written to illustrate them.
BTW, Vinzent thinks the antitheses and gMarcion were published (after 130 AD) with full knowledge of the canonical synoptic gospels, but gMarcion, as only a draft, was the first gospel. However Vinzent says gMarcion was the basis for the synoptic gospels. Go figure!
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2014/1 ... rical.html

I think now gMarcion was written by Marcion (and published soon afterwards) at a time Marcion was still very discreet about his antitheses and after he claimed that gLuke was the interpolated version of an original gospel (that Marcion eventually "discovered"). That would explain the content of gMarcion.

[Vinzent wrote:] the 'son of man' locution is one of the key markers of Marcion's text - you only need to read Tertullian, how he criticises Marcion for it. Yet, he also gives Marcion's answer: the 'son of man' is Daniel's typos which misleads everybody who immediately thinks of the messiah as the warrior prince of the Creator god, instead the Christ of the transcendent God of mercy does not fight, but takes off suffering through his suffering and forgiving. Marcion, if you like, takes the typoi, but undermines them by giving them the new revealed meaning.

Marcion had Jesus saying he is the son of man when on earth (eating & drinking 7:34) several times. Here, "son of man" means having regular mortal human body, well before that man become the cosmic "son of man" (alluding to Daniel). I do not know what this new revealed meaning is. I do not see any other meanings in the synoptic gospels.

adding no extra-evangelical evidence in favor of a fully human Jesus

Tertullian thought the canonical gospels were good enough. What is missing was something official: he tried to make a point about census records.

In conclusion, I like your strenuos opposition, but I recognize, if you like, that the passage in Marcion is not less easy than Luke, but only more critical against everything of human and material.

Luke is a lot more easier to read & understand than the truncated version of Marcion (which lends itself to different interpretations):
Lk 8:19-21 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd.
And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.”
But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
gMarcion And it was told him by certain [people] which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
And he answered and said unto them, [ Who is] My mother and my brethren? My mother and my brethren are these
which hear My words, and do [them].

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

But it's sufficient I show you that it's a fact that some heretics thought this.

So what? What does that have to do about the fact that some heretics thought this? I am not sure what do you mean by "this" in this context. I do not think it is sufficient, far from that.

'this' means 'this interpretation'. Thought by heretics, not by my imagination.

That's a lot to imagine from "So He said to them, “You say that I am [the son of God].”", with "that" which can possibly mean "because (that)" or "since (that)" or "how that".

in gMark ''that's a lot to imagine'' from Mark 15:9 (and the similar Matthew 27:17) that ''king of Jews'' or ''Jesus called Christ'' in mouth of Pilate is ironically true, even if not in the traditional sense usually associated with these 2 terms (king and Christ).

And then, Marcion did not take the opportunity here to have Jesus clarify he is not the son of the God the Jews had in mind.

But what he does confirms that he escapes the logic of the Creator god and the traditional messianic hopes.
Even Mark did not take the opportunity to have Jesus clarify he is not simply the davidic Christ in traditional sense, but something of more.
In Marcion Jesus seems the Jewish Christ but is the Christ of the alien god.
In Mark Jesus seems only the sedicent Jewish Christ but is the Christ and the Son of God, also.

If you have no problems with Mark, why you have problems with gMarcion?

But the incipit in gMarcion is clear about the real celestial origins of Jesus

But gMarcion is also clear about a Jesus who looked as human as possible when walking the earth. However it is not clear how a celestial figure would appear on earth looking as human as the next guy.

in world of pure fiction it's clear.

Would you expect the readers/listeners of gMarcion to understand that? And I do not see an antithetical theme in that gospel: no clear statements about:
a) the God of Jesus not being the God of the Jews
b) Jesus having a Docetist body
c) the incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the transcendent and unknown God (they are never informed of him).

a) see the warrior Jesus Bar-Abbas, Jesus Son of Father. Which is this ''Father''?
b) surely you know what is meant in Luke 4:30.
c) but you recognize in Mark the ''incomprehensiveness of the Jewish people for the'' true identity of Jesus (they are never informed of him). Why with Mark yes and with gMarcion no?

It's sufficient I show you some heretics that thought that with that question (as rethorical answer) 'Who is my mother and my brethren?' Jesus is negating any blood-relationship with human being.

No, it is far from being sufficient.

Why it's not sufficient? At least it proves that it's not born in my mind that heretic interpretation.

And there is no negating of any blood-relationship with human being. The passage can still mean Jesus is disavowing his blood family because they are not among his followers. And instead have a new family based on common belief.

The passage can still mean real blood relation ONLY is you follow Tertullian in considering not-literal the words of Jesus: ''who is my mother and who are my brothers?''. But these words of Jesus literally mean absolute, not relative, rejection of blood relationship.

According to the heretic interpretation reported by Tertullian, the heretics thought that these questioners ''sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him''. Therefore they were the first in denying the existence of that mother and brothers of Jesus.

Well, we know now other "heretics" had problems into interpreting the passage in a way that would not contradict their belief.

Why ''we''? Speak for yourself!

Surely I don't believe I have proved the priority of Mcn. But I am very curious to read Klighardt 2015 (when it will published in English, I hope!) where that point is proved definitely, most likely.

good prosecution,
Giuseppe